Talk:Twyford and Stenson

Untitled
Copied from User Talk to give context

Stenson developments
Stenson hamlet itself is still fairly tranquill, (because of the high ground between it and the 'new road'), but Stenson Fields and Stenson Road are not (even though in living memory they both were :-). Perhaps you can explain more about the threat you perceive to Stenson Fields on the Stenson Talk page.

Also, note that Stenson Fields is (still?) a Civil Parish outside Derby City, so I've deleted this from Derby Districts. (Arleston _Used_ to be in with Sinfin as a CP). Bob aka Linuxlad 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a small amount of tranquil ground between Stenson Fields and the "new road". But a developer is trying to turn Stenson Fields into Stenson Urban Sprawl. Underground though, lies a trojan lake which could cause building problems. The proposed development would build on farming land and on the historical ground around the Derby and Birmingham Railway. --Ð 20:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Heatherton
Is Heatheton Village within Derby City though? --Ð 19:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC). Yes I'm fairly sure Heatherton Village is well inside the City boundary. Bob aka Linuxlad 10:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Stenson v Twyford
I gather from i cognoscenti that Stenson is indeed only a hamlet but Twyford, despite being smaller, is a village by virtue of having a church... Linuxlad 11:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Split article?
It seems to me that there is no good reason why this article is attempting to cover two distinct settlements. I suggest a split. Thoughts? DWaterson (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason for one article is that they are both part of the same parish (by virtue of only having one church between them), as explained in the text. However, if the settlements are socially distinct and there is enough material for two separate articles, then I cannot see that being a single ecclesiastical parish is in itself a prohibition on splitting this into two separate articles. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The church argument is an irrelevance (these are civil, not ecclesiastical, parishes) - they just happen to be rather diffuse communities which run together. I'd leave it be, but the tendency on WP seems to be to write on smaller and smaller units - it's only disc space I guess... Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Stenson lock
The entry reads that Stenson lock is claimed to be the deepest on the canal. This has no citation. It is also not correct as it is 12'2". The deepest lock on the canal is number 40 (Etruria Top Lock) 13'2" http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/locks.htm 213.107.105.156 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)rob

Stenson Bubble
The text says the pub is named "The Stenson Bubble" after a spring. There is no citation. I always understood the name is from the outlet of the bypass culvert in the lower pound of the lock on the south side which sometimes sucks air down from the sluce at the top pound and bubbles out. This is illustrated in the photograph and it's accompianing description. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stenson_Bubble.jpg 213.107.105.156 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)rob

Proposed move
The article at present contains information not just about Stenson, but about Twyford as well. As such, I think moving the page to the parish name of Twyford and Stenson – which currently redirects here – would be more appropriate. Jellyman (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now had the page moved as suggested. Jellyman (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)